Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2020

01-12-2020 | Care | Research article

Factors influencing institutional delivery and the role of accredited social health activist (ASHA): a secondary analysis of India human development survey 2012

Authors: Pooja L. Paul, Shanta Pandey

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

India has focused on incentivizing institutional delivery and introducing the ASHA worker as a key strategy to improve maternal health outcomes. We examined the determinants of institutional delivery and the role of the ASHA worker in shaping choice regarding place of delivery.

Methods

We used data from the India Human Development Survey-II conducted in 2011–12, and extracted an analytic sample of women (N = 8711) who reported having at least one child since 2005. Logistic regression was used to examine influence of socio-demographic factors, frequency of antenatal care (ANC) contacts and exposure to ASHA worker on institutional delivery.

Results

About 15% of the respondents had eight or more ANC contacts. The odds of having an institutional delivery were higher among those respondents who had 8 or more ANC contacts (OR = 3.39, p < 0.001, 95% CI: 2.26, 5.08), and those who had 4–7 ANC contacts (OR = 1.72, p < 0.001, 95% CI: 1.48, 1.99) as compared to those with less than 4 ANC contacts. About 26% of the respondents had any exposure to an ASHA worker. After controlling for ANC contacts, these respondents had three times the odds of institutional delivery (OR = 3.04, p < 0.001, 95% CI: 2.37, 3.89) compared to those who had no exposure to ASHA workers. Further, several sociodemographic variables were associated with institutional delivery. While age of spouse, age at marriage, level of education and urban residence were positively associated with institutional delivery; age of respondent and number of children were inversely associated with institutional delivery.

Conclusions

Both frequency of ANC contacts and exposure to ASHA worker independently emerge as important determinants of institutional delivery. Furthermore, ASHA workers may have a crucial role in promoting antenatal care, thereby strengthening the association between ANC contacts and institutional delivery.
Literature
1.
World Health Statistics. Monitoring Health for the SDGS Sustainable Development Goals. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016..
2.
Center for Reproductive Rights. From risk to rights: realizing states’ obligations to prevent and address maternal mortality. New York: Center for Reproductive Rights; 2014.
3.
WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank, United Nations population division. Trends in Maternal Mortality: 2000 to 2017. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019.
4.
Paina L, Vadrevu L, Hanifi SM, Akuze J, Rieder R, Chan KS, et al. What is the role of community capabilities for maternal health? An exploration of community capabilities as determinants to institutional deliveries in Bangladesh, India, and Uganda. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(Suppl 7):61–71.PubMedCentral
5.
Sharma BB, Jones L, Loxton DJ, Booth D, Smith R. Systematic review of community participation interventions to improve maternal health outcomes in rural South Asia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18:1–16.
6.
Campbell OM, Graham WJ. Strategies for reducing maternal mortality: getting on with what works. Lancet. 2006;368(9543):1284–99.PubMed
7.
8.
Lim S, Dandona L, Hoisington J, James S, Hogan M, Gakidou E. India’s Janani Suraksha Yojana, a conditional cash transfer programme to increase births in health facilities: an impact evaluation. Lancet. 2010;375:2009–23.PubMed
9.
Ali B, Dhillon P, Mohanty S. Inequalities in the utilization of maternal health care in the pre- and post-National Health Mission periods in India. J Biosoc Sci. 2019;52(2):198–212.
10.
Joe W, Perkins J, Kumar S, Rajpal S, Subramanian SV. Institutional delivery in India, 2004–14: unravelling the equity-enhancing contributions of the public sector. Health Policy Plan. 2018;33:645–53.PubMed
11.
Bhattacharyya S, Srivastava A, Roy R, Avan BI. Factors influencing women’s preference for health facility deliveries in Jharkhand state, India: a cross sectional analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):1–9.
12.
Kesterton AJ, Cleland J, Sloggett A, Ronsmans C. Institutional delivery in rural India: the relative importance of accessibility and economic status. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010;10:30.PubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Sahoo J, Singh SV, Gupta VK, Garg S, Kishore J. Do socio-demographic factors still predict the choice of place of delivery: a cross-sectional study in rural North India. J Epidemiol Global Health. 2015;5(4):S27–34.
14.
Srivastava J, Joseph A. Why institutional deliveries are low in Balrampur District Uttar Pradesh: a cross-sectional quantitative and qualitative exploration. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2019;69(3):225–31.
15.
Vellakkal S, Reddy H, Gupta A, Chandran A, Fledderjohann J, Stuckler D. A qualitative study of factors impacting accessing of institutional delivery care in the context of India’s cash incentive program. Soc Sci Med. 2017;178:55–65.PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Thind A, Mohani A, Banerjee K, Hagigi F. Where to deliver? Analysis of choice of delivery location from a national survey in India. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:1–8.
17.
Hollowell J, Oakley L, Kurinczuk JJ, Brocklehurst P, Gray R. The effectiveness of antenatal care programmes to reduce infant mortality and preterm birth in socially disadvantaged and vulnerable women in high-income countries: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;11(1):13.PubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Singh A, Pallikadavath S, Ram F, Alagarajan M. Do antenatal care interventions improve neonatal survival in India? Health Policy Plann. 2014;29(7):842–8.
19.
Dixit P, Khan J, Dwivedi LK, Gupta A. Dimensions of antenatal care service and the alacrity of mothers towards institutional delivery in south and South East Asia. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):1–16.
20.
Sinha S, Upadhyay RP, Tripathy JP, Patro BK. Does utilization of antenatal care result in an institutional delivery? Findings of a record-based study in urban Chandigarh. J Trop Pediatr. 2013;59(3):220–2.PubMed
21.
World Health Organization. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.
22.
23.
Islam M, Masud M. Determinants of frequency and contents of antenatal care visits in Bangladesh: Assessing the extent of compliance with the WHO recommendations. PLoS ONE. 2019;13(9):e0204752.
24.
25.
26.
Agarwal S, Curtis S, Angeles G, Speizer I, Singh K, Thomas J. The impact of India’s accredited social health activist (ASHA) program on the utilization of maternity services: a nationally representative longitudinal modelling study. Hum Resour Health. 2019;17(68):1–13.
27.
Wagner AL, Porth JM, Bettampadi D, Boulton ML. Have community health workers increased the delivery of maternal and child healthcare in India? J Public Health. 2018;40(2):e164–70.
28.
29.
Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 2003.
30.
Sunil TS, Rajaram S, Zottarelli LK. Do individual and program factors matter in the utilization of maternal care services in rural India? A theoretical approach. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(8):943–1957.
31.
Devkota B, Maskey J, Pandey A, Karki D, Godwin P, Gartoulla P, Mehata S, Aryal K. Determinants of home delivery in Nepal – A disaggregated analysis of marginalised and non-marginalised women from the 2016 Nepal Demographic and Health Survey. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):1–17.
32.
Sai FT. The safe motherhood initiative: a call for action. IPPF Med Bull. 1987;21(3):1–2.PubMed
33.
Dowswell T, Carroli G, Duley L, Gates S, Gülmezoglu AM, Khan-Neelofur D, Piaggio G. Alternative versus standard packages of antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(7):CD000934.
34.
Vogel JP, Habib NA, Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Dowswell T, Carroli G, et al. Antenatal care packages with reduced visits and perinatal mortality: a secondary analysis of the WHO antenatal care trial. Reprod Health. 2013;10(1):1–7.
35.
Downe S, Finlayson K, Tunçalp Ö, Gülmezoglu AM. Provision and uptake of routine antenatal services: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;(6):CD012392.
36.
37.
Singh P, Sachs JD. 1 million community health workers in sub-Saharan Africa by 2015. Lancet. 2013;382(9889):363–5.PubMed
38.
Bruce SG, Blanchard AK, Gurav K, Roy A, Jayanna K, Mohan H, et al. L. Preferences for infant delivery site among pregnant women and new mothers in northern Karnataka, India. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15(1):1–10.
39.
Conger AJ. A revised definition for suppressor variables: a guide to their identification and interpretation. Educ Psychol Meas. 1974;34:35–46.
40.
Pandey S, Elliott W. Suppressor variables in social work research: ways to identify in multiple regression models. J Soc Social Work Res. 2010;1(1):28–40.
41.
Tzelgov J, Henik A. Suppression situations in psychological research: definitions, implications, and applications. Psychol Bull. 1991;109(3):524–36.
42.
Pallikadavath S, Foss M, Stones RW. Antenatal care: provision and inequality in rural North India. Soc Sci Med. 2014;59(6):1147–58.
43.
44.
Chattopadhyay A. Men in maternal care: evidence from India. J Biosoc Sci. 2012;44(2):129–53.PubMed
45.
Jungari S, Paswan B. What he knows about her and how it affects her? Husband’s knowledge of pregnancy complications and maternal health care utilization among tribal population in Maharashtra, India. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19:70.PubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Paul P. Maternal age at marriage and adverse pregnancy outcomes: findings from the India human development survey, 2011-2012. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2018;31(6):620–4.PubMed
47.
Paul P, Chouhan P. Association between child marriage and utilization of maternal health care services in India: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional survey. Midwifery. 2019;75:66–71.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Factors influencing institutional delivery and the role of accredited social health activist (ASHA): a secondary analysis of India human development survey 2012
Authors
Pooja L. Paul
Shanta Pandey
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03127-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research article

Cerebral hemodynamic response to short-term maternal hyperoxygenation in fetuses with borderline small left hearts

Research article

Association between prepregnancy body mass index and risk of congenital heart defects in offspring: an ambispective observational study in China

Research article

Implementation of a new program of gestational diabetes screening and management in Morocco: a qualitative exploration of health workers’ perceptions

Research article

Perception of childbirth experiences of Japanese women in Bali, Indonesia: a qualitative study

Research article

Trends in cesarean delivery rates in primipara and the associated factors

Study protocol

Online mindfulness-based intervention for women with pregnancy distress: design of a randomized controlled trial